Subjective Perception of Load Heaviness

• Autorzy: Lee T. H.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This study examined human subjective perception of load heaviness. Forty-two (3 boxes × 14 weights) and 27 (3 boxes × 9 weights) experimental conditions were randomly presented to male and female participants, respectively. The results showed that the participants were not able to discriminate the effect of the box on perceived weight. The participants underestimated the weight for low weights and overestimated it for high weights. The females perceived a greater increase in weight than the males for the same increase in weight. The participants’ linguistic term for perceived weight was positively correlated to the magnitude of weight. Approximately 50% of the males perceived a weight of 20 kg or over as risky, while ~60% of the females perceived a weight of 14 kg or over as risky. This study supposes that the gender difference in muscular capability is responsible for the effect of gender on the risk perception of weight.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

psychophysics; weight discrimination; sense of force

PL

różnica płci; czynniki psychofizyczne; dźwiganie ciężarów; noszenie ciężarów

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: Vol. 20, No. 3
• Strony: 421--427
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 16 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Lee T. H.

• Department of Management and Information Technology, Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Tainan, Taiwan

Bibliografia

• 1.Karwowski W, Shumate C, Yates JW, Pongpatana N. Discriminability of load heaviness; implications for the psychophysical approach to manual lifting. Ergonomics. 1992;35(7–8):729–44.
• 2.Snook SH, Irvine CH. Maximum acceptable weight of lift. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1967;28(4):322–9.
• 3.Gamberale F. The perception of exertion. Ergonomics. 1985;28(1):229–308.
• 4.Stevens SS. On the psychophysical law. Psychol Rev. 1957;64(3):153–81.
• 5.Jones LA. Perception of force and weight: theory and research. Psychol Bull.1986;100(1):29–42.
• 6.Cheng TS, Lee TH. Maximum acceptable weight of manual load carriage for young Taiwanese males. Ind Health. 2006;44(1):200–6.
• 7.Ciriello VM. Does wearing a non-expanding weight lifting belt change psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weights and forces. Int J Ind Ergon. 2008;38(11–12):1045–50.
• 8.Maikala RV, Ciriello VM, Dempsey PG, O’Brien NV. Gender comparison of psychophysical forces, cardiopulmonary, and muscle metabolic responses during a simulated cart pushing task. Gait Posture. 2010;32(4):524–9.
• 9.Lee TH, Cheng TS. Asymmetric lifting capabilities for different container dimensions. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE). 2011;17(2):187–93. Retrieved June 27, 2014, from: http://www.ciop.pl/43476.
• 10.Fischer SL, Brenneman EC, Wells RP, Dickerson CR. Relationships between psychophysically acceptable and maximum voluntary hand force capacity in the context of underlying biomechanical limitations. Appl Ergon. 2012;43(5):813–20.
• 11.Deeb JM. Muscular fatigue and its effects on weight perception. Int J Ind Ergon. 1999;24(2):223–33.
• 12.Mital A. The psychophysical approach to manual lifting—a verification study. Hum Factors. 1983;25(5):485–91.
• 13.Karwowski W. Perception of load heaviness by males. In: Kroemer KHE, McGlothlin JD, Bobick TG, editors. Manual materials handling: understanding and preventing back trauma. Akron, OH, USA: American Industrial Hygiene Association; 1988. p. 9–14.
• 14.Karwowski W. Psychophysical acceptability and perception of load heaviness by females. Ergonomics. 1991;34(4):487–96.
• 15.Ciriello VM, Snook SH. A study of size, distance, height and frequency effects on manual handling tasks. Hum Factors. 1983;25(5):473–83.
• 16.Kroemer KHE, Grandjean E. Fitting the task to the human, 5th ed. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press; 1997.